cravnravn Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Holy Crap, the Rays traded Price to Detroit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Samardzija is under contract through next season, but I am sure Lester is gone after this season. I do not think Cespedes is that big a loss for them, he was only under contract through 2015. They will have one more run next year. Remember, the A's will get A.J. Griffin and Jarrod Parker back in the future; two young, very good pitchers. They will be fine for the future, but are certainly all in this season. I think in the long term they are trying to push for a new stadium.I completely agree. It's absolutely ridiculous how the MLB will not let the A's move to San Jose when the city is more than willing to build a new stadium and the A's GAVE the Giants that territory as a goodwill jester years ago to help them get a new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Samardzija is under contract through next season, but I am sure Lester is gone after this season. I do not think Cespedes is that big a loss for them, he was only under contract through 2015. They will have one more run next year. Remember, the A's will get A.J. Griffin and Jarrod Parker back in the future; two young, very good pitchers. They will be fine for the future, but are certainly all in this season. I completely agree. It's absolutely ridiculous how the MLB will not let the A's move to San Jose when the city is more than willing to build a new stadium and the A's GAVE the Giants that territory as a goodwill jester years ago to help them get a new stadium.I think publicly funded statements need to be a thing of the past. But that's a different discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 I think publicly funded statements need to be a thing of the past. But that's a different discussion.agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I think publicly funded statements need to be a thing of the past. But that's a different discussion.I think it is an interesting discussion. I get where you are coming from, nearly all economic data suggests no positive economic impact of sports stadiums to a community. But it's almost like a reverse race to the bottom, if one city doesn't pay for a stadium, another will. If a community wants to publicly fund a stadium, then that's their decision I guess. Sure, not everyone will be happy, not how is that different than anything else? Anyways, I think it is a very interesting topic with all the adverse economic data out there. I mean San Antonio with an NFL team? Crazy! Although the Saints did average over 62,000 fans on short notice for their three games in San Antonio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 I get where you are coming from, nearly all economic data suggest no positive economic impact of sports stadiums to a community. But it's almost like a reverse race to the bottom, if one city doesn't pay for a stadium, another will. If a community wants to publicly fund a stadium, then that's their decision I guess. Sure, not everyone will be happy, not how is that different than anything else? Anyways, I think it is a very interesting topic with all the adverse economic data out there.That is a thing of the past too. Sure it used to be that you could move. Where does a baseball team take their franchise now? Who is clamoring to build a baseball stadium now? The only place to go now for the MLB is contraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 That is a thing of the past too. Sure it used to be that you could move. Where does a baseball team take their franchise now? Who is clamoring to build a baseball stadium now? The only place to go now for the MLB is contraction.Well, San Jose already said they would build a stadium. City even filed a lawsuit against the MLB for blocking the move. Beyond San Jose, I think you would be very surprised. If an MLB team openly declared they were looking to relocate, baseball is enormous in the South where there aren't as many pro franchises. I am sure there is a greedy, fame crazed politician who will do whatever it takes to build a stadium. On a completely different cultural spectrum, I bet Portland would try for a team. They are already trying for the Raiders. There is a new documentary on how baseball crazy Portland is. http://blog.seattlepi.com/baseball/2014/04/11/a-rival-for-the-seattle-mariners-portland-eyeing-oakland-as-for-possible-relocation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 It's not just the lack of a truly positive effect but also that the city/state never earn their money back directly. I wouldn't be so opposed of the public held more rights in the contracts too - but we build the stadiums for free, practically give away all the value in them including alternate use, etc, and then just sit on our asses. Why can't teams build their own stadiums like every other business in the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceEight Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Samardzija is under contract through next season, but I am sure Lester is gone after this season. I do not think Cespedes is that big a loss for them, he was only under contract through 2015. They will have one more run next year. Remember, the A's will get A.J. Griffin and Jarrod Parker back in the future; two young, very good pitchers. They will be fine for the future, but are certainly all in this season. I completely agree. It's absolutely ridiculous how the MLB will not let the A's move to San Jose when the city is more than willing to build a new stadium and the A's GAVE the Giants that territory as a goodwill jester years ago to help them get a new stadium. Cespedes is playing for just over $3 million this year, and his average jumps up to nearly $11 next year. I would not be at all surprised if the Sox sign him to an extension ASAP. Why can't teams build their own stadiums like every other business in the country? Because taxpayers keep offering to pay for them. People and their governments do very stupid things when sentiment seeps into business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well, San Jose already said they would build a stadium. City even filed a lawsuit against the MLB for blocking the move. Beyond San Jose, I think you would be very surprised. If an MLB team openly declared they were looking to relocate, baseball is enormous in the South where there aren't as many pro franchises. I am sure there is a greedy, fame crazed politician who will do whatever it takes to build a stadium. On a completely different cultural spectrum, I bet Portland would try for a team. They are already trying for the Raiders. There is a new documentary on how baseball crazy Portland is. http://blog.seattlepi.com/baseball/2014/04/11/a-rival-for-the-seattle-mariners-portland-eyeing-oakland-as-for-possible-relocation/I don't see any demand anywhere including the south. Fla has been an epic disaster and I think other cities have noticed. Oregon is a dangerous spot. They have a crazy PED law. It has kept the WWE out for yrs. I don't see MLB or the NFL dealing with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I don't see any demand anywhere including the south. Fla has been an epic disaster and I think other cities have noticed. Oregon is a dangerous spot. They have a crazy PED law. It has kept the WWE out for yrs. I don't see MLB or the NFL dealing with that.Sorry to change the topic again but I'm a huge WWE fan and I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean pre-2000s? After the steroid prob in the early 90s (which was complete BS with what was going on in baseball), the WWE (then WWF) emphasized sports entertainment to avoid being governed by sports state commissions like boxing and MMA. WWE is coming to Portland on December 10. As far as demand in the South or Midwest, Indy, Charlotte, Nashville. No doubt in my mind one of these cities would vie for a team. Indy has a wildly popular AAA team (my wife is from Indy and the games are a blast to go to, beautiful stadium in the heart of downtown with sufficient expansion potential). Indiana University in nearby Bloomington is among the top attendance in NCAA for baseball. Charlotte just built a brand new AAA ballpark. Nashville is a baseball crazy town with huge support for both the AAA team and Vanderbilt. Louisville, Omaha, New Orleans, and Columbus could also do a lot better job then some current MLB cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 It was in the 90's. It was during the Monday night wars. As for minor league towns vs major league. It is a much larger investment to build a MLB stadium. I just don't hear about demand for MLB teams like there was about a decade ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Because taxpayers keep offering to pay for them. People and their governments do very stupid things when sentiment seeps into business.Well, I knew the real answer. I just don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForceEight Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Well, I knew the real answer. I just don't get it. I know ya did. It's gross. But think about the Ravens; if Bisciotti decided in a few years that M&T was antiquated and needed tax-funded replacement, and the city and MSA both disagreed and let him negotiate with, say, L.A. on a new stadium deal, how many of us do you think would be furious that we didn't get the opportunity to fund it? Big time sports franchises have us right under their thumbs, and there's very little we can do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I know ya did. It's gross. But think about the Ravens; if Bisciotti decided in a few years that M&T was antiquated and needed tax-funded replacement, and the city and MSA both disagreed and let him negotiate with, say, L.A. on a new stadium deal, how many of us do you think would be furious that we didn't get the opportunity to fund it? Big time sports franchises have us right under their thumbs, and there's very little we can do about it.It's no coincidence that the Ravens extended M&T naming rights until the exact year the lease runs out. We are going to see the exact scenario you explained above in 2024 and renovations to M&T Bank stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Never know what we'll see in ten years, could be a very different world. Regardless I am sure that many would beg the state to pay and there was a time I would have been in that camp. But tides are changing and I am sure plenty of food would simply day to Steve, screw you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Never know what we'll see in ten years, could be a very different world. Regardless I am sure that many would beg the state to pay and there was a time I would have been in that camp. But tides are changing and I am sure plenty of food would simply day to Steve, screw you.I could see it go both ways in ten years. Either the NFL continues exploding in popularity through sponsorships, television deals, and international expansion (Jags to London, Bills to Toronto). Or I could see the NFL as a bubble that over expands and saturates its product. Regardless, I see the problem you've identified above as getting better. Teams with a stadium in a prime location are going to be more inclined to renovate as opposed to new construction (less cost). Furthermore, a lot of these old owners asking for new stadiums are value rich, but not necessarily rich with liquidity (sports teams have exponentially increased in value turning owners who bought these teams for a few million into billionaires). In other words, the new money owners coming into the league might be in a better position to help contribute to a project if they want some of the luxuries above and beyond a functional stadium. We've seen this already with Biscotti privately funding improvements to M&T since taking over. Private colleges, and some public, for years have been able to fund their own stadiums through private fundraising. Maybe this could be a model for future improvements to pro stadiums as well, to a degree. However, a state owned facility has just as much motivation to upkeep a stadium and keep it as revenue generating. I don't ever see Bisciotti moving the team. Especially with how much he spent on the Castle in Owings Mills. I think he and the team will be fair with their demands in 2024. Anyways, I'd be in that boat that would pay a little higher taxes to keep the Ravens/O's if it came down to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I was thinking more that public perception has already begun to swing against stadium payouts - the recession has only added to that and its lingering effects, including the effect on national and local debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 I was thinking more that public perception has already begun to swing against stadium payouts - the recession has only added to that and its lingering effects, including the effect on national and local debt.I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I would like to think that but we are still seeing massive amounts of money being handed out. Where are you getting this feeling from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 The Bills. They had floated a new stadium idea and I think Albany said no. It does mean that they will be off to Toronto but I think that has been a foregone conclusion for yrs. Also Minny said no to extra money and the Wilfs are paying part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I just think the number of stadiums under construction is way down from the last decade. When new proposals start showing up, it will be harder to get support - especially as long as the "tea party" / anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-debt trend remains a major part of our society. (Not that I entirely support that). I feel like I have a read a few stories recently about leagues and teams putting up the money more often - quick Google search shows me that the NFL and Dolphins are paying for major improvements there. They are getting some tax changes, but the owner is putting up $350m himself. http://www.miamidolphins.com/news/article-1/Sun-Life-Stadium-Modernization-Plan-Approved-By-Miami-Dade-County-Commission/18610982-a679-4ddc-abe5-e9bf1518c8e7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 Oh yeah Miami totally blew off the dolphins and not the team is doing it on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Oh yeah Miami totally blew off the dolphins and not the team is doing it on their own.They can thank the Marlins for that. Wow did the city get screwed in that deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I just think the number of stadiums under construction is way down from the last decade. When new proposals start showing up, it will be harder to get support - especially as long as the "tea party" / anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-debt trend remains a major part of our society. (Not that I entirely support that). I feel like I have a read a few stories recently about leagues and teams putting up the money more often - quick Google search shows me that the NFL and Dolphins are paying for major improvements there. They are getting some tax changes, but the owner is putting up $350m himself. http://www.miamidolphins.com/news/article-1/Sun-Life-Stadium-Modernization-Plan-Approved-By-Miami-Dade-County-Commission/18610982-a679-4ddc-abe5-e9bf1518c8e7Gotcha, we are on the same page I agree. I also think part of it is the astronomical rise in construction costs and the added luxuries of modern day stadiums. I'm not sure if cities are paying less dollar wise, but they are just not paying for the whole project, as you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.